Search

One of the core principles of providing care in general practice is giving more to those who need it most. We investigate some of the complexities of this ambition in the context of cancer care for patients defined as socially disadvantaged by their general practitioner (GP). We do this by exploring how care is sought, how it is offered, and what expectations patients and GPs carry with them when receiving and providing cancer care in the Danish welfare state. We carried out semi-structured interviews with eight GPs and seven socially disadvantaged cancer patients living with different types and stages of cancer. The interviews focused on needs and challenges in cancer follow-up in general practice and were thematically coded. Drawing on theoretical concepts of morality and Nordic individualism, we point to how one of the main challenges in cancer care and follow-up is to figure out how the doctor-patient relationship should be established, practiced, and maintained. Both GPs and patients stressed the importance of the relationship, but how it should be practiced amidst social norms about being a patient, a citizen and how care-seeking should unfold seems less clear. In conclusion we argue that giving more to those who need it the most is a difficult and ill-defined task that is shaped by the cultural, social, and political expectations of both GPs and patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Demographic changes, the evolvement of modern medicine and new treatments for severe diseases, increase the need for palliative care services. Palliative care includes all patients with life-limiting conditions, irrespective of diagnosis. In Norway, palliative care rests on a decentralised model where patient care can be delivered close to the patient's home, and the Norwegian guideline for palliative care describes a model of care resting on extensive collaboration. Previous research suggests that this guideline is not well implemented among general practitioners (GPs). In this study, we aim to investigate barriers to GPs' participation in palliative care and implementation of the guideline. We interviewed 25 GPs in four focus groups guided by a semi-structured interview guide. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed qualitatively with reflexive thematic analysis. We identified four main themes as barriers to GPs' participation in palliative care and to implementation of the guideline: (1) different established local cultures and practices of palliative care, (2) discontinuity of the GP–patient relationship, (3) unclear clinical handover and information gaps and (4) a mismatch between the guideline and everyday general practice. Significant structural and individual barriers to GPs' participation in palliative care exist, which hamper the implementation of the guideline. GPs should be involved as stakeholders when guidelines involving them are created. Introduction of new professionals in primary care needs to be actively managed to avoid inappropriate collaborative practices. Continuity of the GP–patient relationship must be maintained throughout severe illness and at end-of-life. According to the Norwegian guideline for palliative care, the GP should have a central position in providing primary palliative care. Recent research and public reports suggest that not all GPs have such a central role or adhere to the guidelines. This study highlights individual and structural barriers that could be addressed to increase GPs' participation in palliative care and aid the implementation of the guidelines for palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To explore Norwegian GPs' experiences with and perceived suitability of issuing sickness certifications in remote consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used a mixed methods research design. An online survey with 301 respondents was combined with qualitative interviews with ten GPs. Norwegian general practice. Most GPs agreed it was difficult to assess a patient's ability to work without physical attendance for a first-time certification in remote consultations. However, extending a certification was considered less problematic. If physical examinations were required, the GPs would ask the patient to come to the office. The most suitable diagnoses for remote certification were respiratory infections and COVID-19-related diagnoses, as well as known chronic and long-term diseases. The GPs emphasized the importance of knowing both the patient and the medical problem. The GP-patient relationship could be affected by remote consultations, and there were mixed views on the impact. Many GPs found it easier to deny a request for a sickness certification in remote consultations. The GPs expressed concern about the societal costs and an increased number of certifications if remote consultations were too easily accessible. The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the findings should be interpreted in that context. Our study shows that issuing sickness certifications in remote consultations were viewed to be suitable for COVID-19 related problems, for patients the GP has met before, for the follow-up of known medical problems, and the extension of sickness certifications. Not meeting the patient face-to-face may affect the GP-patient relationship as well as make the GPs' dual role more challenging. The GPs perceived issuing sickness certifications in remote consultations as suitable when patient and health problem are known, and when the certification is an extension. Issuing sickness certifications in remote consultations can both harm and strengthen the GP-patient relationship. The GPs were aware of their social responsibility and were concerned that issuing sickness certificates in remote consultations can change their sick-listing practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To explore older patients' experiences with accessing and using e-consultations to send text-based clinical inquiries to the general practitioner (GP) online. Qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews. Results were analysed through a six-phase thematic analysis and interpreted through Levesque's framework of patient-centred access to health care. General practice in Norway. Patients aged over 65 years (n = 16) with experience in using e-consultations. Respondents considered e-consultations as an integrated part of general practice which helped them achieve better access to health care. We identified four themes describing older patients' access to and use of e-consultations: 1) the importance of digital health literacy to learn about and use the service – and the fear of losing it, 2) the high availability of the service as the main advantage, due to the perceived unavailability of physical GP services, 3) the importance of voluntary use of e-consultations, 4) the importance of a trusting relationship with the GP. Information about e-consultations and guidelines for suitable use are recommended to ensure equal access to all patients, regardless of their digital health literacy. Availability problems and high work burdens for the GPs could affect the patients' choice for using e-consultations. If e-consultations are used for triage purposes, caution should be taken to avoid a shift in workload from the health secretary to the GP. The extended use of e-consultations with the general practitioner has raised concerns that the service may not be accessible and suitable for older patients. For older users, e-consultations can represent a positive addition to physical consultation forms due to the high availability of the service in a general practice setting characterised by long waiting times. Digital health literacy is essential to learn about and use the service. Information about the service and how to use it should be available to all patients to ensure equal access. A trusting relationship with the GP is described as essential for older patients to perceive the outcome of e-consultations as appropriate and safe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]